Massholes know dedicated bike lanes are really dedicated to getting them out of traffic

Parking in a bike lane? Boring, not worth mentioning anymore. But even a jaded Bostonian like our own roving UHub photographer AlisonO could only watch in amazement today when a guy in a pickup drovee down the protected bike lanes, the ones blocked off to keep people like him away, on Staniford Street so he could get to the parking lot on the corner with Merrimac that much faster.

So dedicated bike lanes but pedestrians cross against their signal (right of wayIs something given should not be taken. Stop being rude and dangerous) and bikers scooters an motorcycles can travel in any lane ? Cool. Also.
Maybe this person was from out of town and made a mistake.

Bike Lanes work the same everywhere. Being from out of town wouldn't explain it. My buddy tried that excuse once when he drove over the yellow line to make a turn faster. The cop said, "yeah, but that law is the same everywhere."

No entitled bikers equals No silly bike lane to “cross” I agree the streets are too wide as it is let’s make them smaller by shoving in rich D I N K safety lanes. Naaaught
Every one of you citizens needs annual training pedestrians bicycle people everybody it should be a requirement to know the road for everyone a pedestrian can cause accidents the don’t even know about there are daily near misses because of a lack of training on all sides.

AlsoTHERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RIGHT OF WAY WAIT FOR THE OPERATOR TO SIGNAL YOU BEFORE YOU PROCEED.l

By MA law, bicycles are allowed on any public road, street, or bikeway in the Commonwealth, except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bikes have been posted. Furthermore, bicycles can use the full lane anywhere, anytime, and on any street (except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted), even if there is a bike lane.

You're right, maybe they are from out of town, so totally fine to put cyclists and pedestrians in danger if it was just a mistake

A driver breaks the law and endangers people and you blame pedestrians and cyclists? Morons like you are why 35,000 people are killed every year by entitled drivers in America. You are dumb so you think using ignorance of the laws is a fine excuse for drivers to do whatever the hell they want. This driver knew exactly what they were doing. They just don't care who they hurt or kill and they know the cops aren't doing their jobs.

For the walk signal. Do you. Probably not. Most people don’t cause they don’t have time or there is no car coming. Yet. Or the car sees them. Something smart like that.
The morons are the ones Playing around in traffic expecting cars to move for them. Smh.

Since a bicycle is also a vehicle, cyclists, like automobile and truck drivers, etc., are also subject to the rules of the road, and they, too, are obligated to obey the traffic laws, which include stopping at STOP signs and red lights, not riding on the wrong side of the road or going the wrong way down one-way streets, or riding against the traffic. A cyclist who violates these laws also puts him/herself in danger.

Nobody says that there aren't irresponsible auto and truck drivers on the roads, because there are, but that doesn't mean that cyclists should put themselves in danger by violating the traffic laws, and running red lights.

When cyclists run red lights, which a good many of them do, then they really are putting themselves in danger. When bicyclists run red lights and/or weave in and out of traffic, it's not only stupid and irresponsible behavior on the part of the cyclist(s), but can and has proved to be deadly for the cyclist(s), to boot.

We can get into specifics if you like, its really a consequence of car-centric laws and infrastructure that are meant to try and protect society from the dangers of motorists. They were never designed with our safety in mind beyond just squeezing us in.

how is this comment related to the article? Bringing up a requirement for cyclists to obey the law when you have no evidence on this page that suggests a cyclists broke to law seems to show that you are insecure about driving.

A bicycle is a vehicle, too, and therefore, cyclists are subject to the rules of the road, as well. I've seen cyclists weave in and out of traffic, go the wrong way down one-way street, ride on the wrong side of two-way streets, and run red lights with impunity.

What do your attacks have to do with this article? Find a relevant forum for your baseless attacks. If you bothered to read my post, you would know that i did not defend cyclists, I pointed out that your comment is not relevant to this article. You have an egocentric pattern of manipulating any post into what you want to complain about.

You're the one who's not being very calm right now. You're being rather accusatory with me at this moment. Plenty of cyclists have been seriously injured or killed as a consequence of running red lights, and that's no kidding.

Statistics show that most cyclists are not at fault in crashes that cause the cyclist's death. Most of the time when a car hits a cyclist, they hit them from behind. If you don't believe me, you can do some research on the the subject. This article has nothing to do with cyclists running red lights. Why are you obsessed with criticizing cyclists that you make such unfounded accusations in an article about a truck driver behaving badly?

1. by an elderly person on the wrong side of the road
2. by a driver who passed me as I was setting up to (and signalling) a right turn who tried to pass me, then nearly right hooked me
3. as a pedestrian using a walk light, by a vehicle that was in the box when the all-way walk signal went but couldn't accept that they needed to give way

on and on and on and on and on ...

Oh, and, 4. a jaywalking pedestrian nearly got hit by me when I HAD THE GREEN LIGHT and they did not.

Cool story. You think one cyclist allegedly running a red light makes it ok for drivers to break the law? American drivers kill about 35,000 per year. Cyclists kill about zero. So who sounds like the bigger threat here?

What a good point. And very important to make. The next time Adam posts a story about a convenience store robbery, I'm going to point out that someone else committed a different crime in a different place that was completely unrelated. Because, you know, bicycles.

One example in several years (and in a different city, no less) is pretty close to zero, especially given the number of pedestrians and cyclists. Certainly nowhere close to the number of pedestrians injured or killed by cars!

realize that it's not just one cyclist who runs a red light, but enough so that it's noticeable. I'll also add that plenty of cyclists who are irresponsible and stupid enough to run red lights get killed, too.

I almost hit a pedestrian that was walking against the green light that I had today.

I bet they tell the story very differently to their friends/coworkers. "I was almost hit by a cyclist today!...............(of course I was in the wrong because they had the green light).....I'm going to use it as an anecdote to dunk on cyclists anytime their safety comes up."

And every time someone talks about this phenomenon on UHub, someone (wrongly) states that pedestrians always have the right of way, including when they have a BIG RED HAND, and posts the law stating they have the right of way at an unsignaled intersection. It’s a commonly held belief that cars/bikes are supposed to stop on a green light to let pedestrians cross any fucking where they want. The actual law is that cars/bikes need to stop if someone is crossing when there’s no crosswalk within a certain distance.

I almost get hit by cars running a red to take the right from Atlantic onto Summer or speeding to take the left from Summer onto the JFK Surface Road like five seconds after the turn signal turns red like 3 times a week.

They get up very, very early AM and are responsible for you having all the homes, apartment/condo buildings, schools,
hospitals, supermarkets, office buildings, skyscrapers, etc. to live, shop, work in every day.

There's a pattern on here of posters mocking and dare I say looking down on men percieved to be blue collar workers. It's obnoxious and ignorant. Ecpecially for a part of the country that prides itself on being Progressive, tolerant, celebrating diversity. I certainly don't see much of that on a daily basis in and around Boston. Arrogance and smugness is far more common.

They get up very, very early AM and are responsible for you having all the homes, apartment/condo buildings, schools,

etc, etc, etc, all good things come from the blue-collar men in the pickup trucks.

You know what? Some of my best friends are blue-collar men in pickup trucks (or other vehicles; you in particular would probably be surprised at how many of them drive wagons). They don't park like dicks. This person parked like a dick.

Construction workers are often told, wrongly, by their employers, that "it's fine to park there". Their employers are in the wrong, but so is someone who parks where it's obviously not ok to park.

MA law does not prohibit vehicles from driving in a bike lane, so long as they are not impeding a cyclist from making progress. As there are no cyclists in the photo being impeded, theoretically this truck is not exactly wrong here for driving in the bike lane (aside from common sense, possible marked lane violations, etc).

I'm trying to picture these lanes in my head, but I'm guessing most of them have a solid line protecting them from the roadway, meaning a car would need to cross it (breaking the law) in order to get in the lane.

1. You might want to read up on your history of paved roads. I'd start with the Good Roads Movement
2. Regardless, the bit of the road here with the bike lane markings and the physical separators certainly was designed specifically for bikes and is marked accordingly.

Funnily enough, just around the corner from where this photo was taken, there's an electronic counter that displays how many cyclists pass through there in real time. It's in the many thousands. You can go check it out yourself. It's also worth noting that, while it's kind of expensive to lay the lane down, it will last forever and require almost no upkeep - unlike cars, bikes do basically zero damage to the road surface.

Sure. Then give me back my tax dollars I pay for roads that I don't use as a non driver. It'll be a fat check because drivers pay so little a percentage for the roads they use. And then I want another check for the environmental damage the drivers have caused with their pollution. Then I want another one for the effect that deadly auto emissions have had on my health. And another one for the rise in the cost of health insurance due to the trillions in bills caused by car crashes. Then I want a refund on the portion of my property taxes for the billions of dollars of free parking Boston has given to drivers. You wanted accountability, right? Now pay up, cheapskate.

and where do the funds come to alter road ways to include protected and/or dedicated bike lanes? last i checked, there were no taxes on bikes beyond sales tax.

you have a valid point that bike infrastructure need work, and we all know that there are far too many shitty drivers on the roads, but your utopia where cars don't exist is a pipe dream at best. lashing out at car owners and those dependent on cars for transportation (small children, the elderly, the disabled) isn't a productive solution.

When the day comes where you're forced to purchase a vehicle (a move for a new job, or whatever), can you give me a heads up so I can be there to watch you sign the paperwork and drive off the lot? I just want to get a snapshot of the look on your face. Also, I'll be reading aloud all your comments while you sign the dotted line and take possession of the vehicle.

Look out for drivers in pickup trucks that do not use their trucks commercially and tend to drive a truck mainly because they like it. Those are the ones that tend to intimidate other drivers and violate traffic rules. You will often see these drivers speeding down the highway in the passing lane, shaved head, wrap around sunglasses, maybe a goatee, etc. Lots of them are off duty police officers, hockey coaches, whatever..

The human brain uses pattern recognition continuously. It is the most highly evolved function we have and sets us apart from animals and computers (for now).

I am also Not White and subject to this often. Sure it may not be not be nice to discuss patterns based on immutable characteristics, especially negative ones, but good luck changing humanity’s brain chemistry.

populated state after NJ and R.I.? Take the rural part of the state out of the equation and eastern MA Greater Boston is very densely populated. MA also has the lowest traffic fatality rate in the nation.

an awful lot of the car/truck traffic is due to the fact that people drive in from the suburbs every morning for work, school, or whatever, and then drive back out to the suburbs where they live, at the end of the day,

Further back, the signs allow parking after 8 pm: https://goo.gl/maps/WZ8DjaqDMCAJYFxq7 . Where are you supposed to park? In the right general lane, to the left of the cycle track curb? These signs went up *after* the cycle track.

In the original plans for Government Center, what was supposed to be at the corner of Staniford and Merrimack? Was it really supposed to be a parking lot with a chain link fence, or was there supposed to be a landscaped plaza or another building? https://goo.gl/maps/GyrpsDR4F7wAe5g77

I was always taught that the safest way to turn right when there's a bike lane is to merge into it in advance when safe. Of course cycle tracks with a curb make this physically impossible without doing something else illegal (like this driver did). But turning across a cycle track continues to be a problem, and I don't think they're a safe design for cyclists in places with a lot of driveways. At least in this case there isn't parking (before 8 pm) obscuring drivers and cyclists from seeing each other.

I was always taught that the safest way to turn right when there's a bike lane is to merge into it in advance when safe.

Please don't do this. Stay in your lane with your signal on until you are clear to turn, and then turn across the bike lane, after confirming there are no cyclists coming.

Driving in the bike lane in advance of your turn just blocks cyclists trying to go straight. It's both frustrating and dangerous to come up behind a car that's blocking the bike lane while waiting to turn right.

Per the MA Driver's Manual:

If you're turning, you must yield to bicyclists going straight through an intersection. Never cut in front of a bicyclist.

"A right-turning car is supposed to move into the bike lane before the intersection — anywhere from 200 to 50 feet before — first signaling the lane merge, then merging right to the curb lane, and finally making the actual turn once it’s deemed safe (CVC 21717).

The guiding principle and law is to always make a right turn from the right lane — or “Turn from the Curb” (CVC 22100). Turning across lanes is a big no-no, since it can result in crashes and near-crashes, especially “right hook” collisions."

So does the Executive Director of DC Sustainable Transportation:https://ggwash.org/view/68168/throwback-thursday-drivers-must-merge-into...
"Of you want to turn right, when there is a bicycle lane on the right side of the road, you should signal right to change lanes, look to ensure there are no bicyclists in the lane, then move into the lane. You are then blocking the bike lane, so cyclists don’t pull up on the right. You can then signal again to turn right and make the turn."

Staying in the general lane right up to the intersection is a good way to right hook a bicyclist, if you're not careful.

While biking, I'd much rather come up behind a right-turning car that's in the bike lane, than a right-turning car in the general lane. I have no idea if the car in the general lane will see me and yield to me. If they're not signaling, I wouldn't even know they're turning right.

However, if the car is in the bike lane, signaling right, I can merge left and be on their left. Or choose to wait behind them if I prefer.

While biking, I'd much rather come up behind a right-turning car that's in the bike lane, than a right-turning car in the general lane. I have no idea if the car in the general lane will see me and yield to me. If they're not signaling, I wouldn't even know they're turning right.

I don't bicycle, but I used to ride a moto (meaning I know what it's like to not be seen). But your train of thought here ^ is what I believed was the typical bicyclist's.

"Traffic law in the USA requires vehicles to merge right before turning right, even when the rightmost lane is a restricted-used lane such as a parking lane, bike lane or bus lane."

"Turning right from the left lane is hazardous. So is entering an intersection from concealment to the right of stopped vehicles."

This site points out that in addition to the right-hook issue, cyclists entering an intersection while passing on the right of a line of stopped cars are at risk of being hit by oncoming left-turning cars.

Don't put yourself in this situation, as a cyclist or a driver. If you're turning right, merge to the right in advance. If you're going straight, don't put yourself to the right of right-turning cars.

And you're allowed to cross a single solid white line. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to use the legal street parking in your link. And cyclists wouldn't be allowed to merge left into the general lane, which is 100% legal and often necessary.